Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 134642 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline theoderic

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • t
  • Posts: 5
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Civilian infrastructure transport part 2
« Reply #1380 on: September 05, 2019, 02:47:38 PM »
Quote from: Stryker link=topic=9841.   msg116290#msg116290 date=1567540604
An alternate solution to moving the trade infrastructure where it needs to be would be to remove the 25 million population cap for marking a colony as stable.     

After all, if my colony has 7 million people, but has 100% efficiency, it is stable.      Introducing more infrastructure increases the population, which increases unemployment, which introduces instability and unhappiness.   

Cool, but shouldn't people actually move to the places that has "jobs" rather than infrastructure?

The current system in aurora basically just means a colony gets filled even if the planet has no jobs, is extremely toxic and has massive G-forces.    I would suggest an adoption of the "free market" system where shipping lines are only able to transport colonists to planets that are actually attractive for people to live in, this would also reintroduce the need to build colony ships of the "state" that can transport people to planets guided by a more draconic mindset.     ::)
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 02:54:12 PM by theoderic »
 

Offline TheRowan

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1381 on: September 05, 2019, 04:45:49 PM »
I always assumed that infrastructure included a certain amount of "non-TN" jobs... the colonists who aren't labouring in your mines and shipyards aren't necessarily unemployed, they're just working as estate agents, or short-order cooks, or dog groomers. They're not necessarily going to want to move just because you've opened a new Maintenance facility on Eros.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 510
  • Thanked: 42 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1382 on: September 05, 2019, 05:30:34 PM »
Given that Aurora doesn't simulate unemployment figures, it's very reasonable to assume that the section of the population that's available as the Manufacturing sector is the section of the population that could be employed in TN industries, and the remainder is otherwise gainfully employed doing non-TN jobs that may or may not involve manufacturing.

I mean, nobody cares if your TN factories are doing anything either, they'll still generate wealth, so they are probably being used for something even if it's not anything TN related. They'd hardly be running idle, that's entirely too expensive.
 

Online Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 148 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1383 on: September 05, 2019, 05:59:19 PM »
Yeah we've had this discussion before and it kinda opens a whole can of worms. Basically, if we want to have more "realistic" immigration/emigration mechanics, then the whole civilian sector needs to be revamped and made more detailed.
 

Offline mtm84

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 60
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1384 on: September 05, 2019, 08:29:55 PM »
Personally I’m ok with the current high level economic function vs something detailed like, say, a Paradox grand strategy game.
 
The following users thanked this post: theoderic

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1027
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1385 on: September 06, 2019, 08:33:41 AM »
Yeah we've had this discussion before and it kinda opens a whole can of worms. Basically, if we want to have more "realistic" immigration/emigration mechanics, then the whole civilian sector needs to be revamped and made more detailed.
Personally I’m ok with the current high level economic function vs something detailed like, say, a Paradox grand strategy game.

I'd still like a tad bit more detail, so that for example if you move alot of TN factories, shipyards and facilities to a new colony it will create alot of demand which will cause shipping companies to focus on getting more people there ASAP to fill that demand instead of sending colonists seemingly towards random destinations.

Doesn't have to be anything fancy or super detailed, just the basics of unemployment/worker shortage + connection to where people want to relocate from and towards.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 08:35:58 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline SpikeTheHobbitMage

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1386 on: September 07, 2019, 04:05:47 PM »
Yeah we've had this discussion before and it kinda opens a whole can of worms. Basically, if we want to have more "realistic" immigration/emigration mechanics, then the whole civilian sector needs to be revamped and made more detailed.
Personally I’m ok with the current high level economic function vs something detailed like, say, a Paradox grand strategy game.

I'd still like a tad bit more detail, so that for example if you move alot of TN factories, shipyards and facilities to a new colony it will create alot of demand which will cause shipping companies to focus on getting more people there ASAP to fill that demand instead of sending colonists seemingly towards random destinations.

Doesn't have to be anything fancy or super detailed, just the basics of unemployment/worker shortage + connection to where people want to relocate from and towards.
Aurora already models three 'motivators' that could be used to effectively govern population movement:
Overcrowded populations should want to move to colonies with sufficient space.
Unhappy populations should want to move to colonies with sufficient space and no unrest.
Unemployed populations should want to move to colonies with sufficient space, no unrest, and a worker shortage.  'Lower unemployment' would be a better destination metric, but care would be needed to prevent seesaw movement.
The system doesn't even need to be efficient as long as the above rules are followed and colonists in transit are accounted for.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 510
  • Thanked: 42 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1387 on: September 07, 2019, 08:04:59 PM »
You have that wrong.
Overcrowded populations would seek more room.
Unemployed populations would seek employment.
Unhappy populations would seek to relieve the cause of their unhappiness, which is not modeled (the most common method is some form of regime change, civil unrest tends to be the result of continued heavy discontent in a population). High unrest populations however would generally seek other places with lower unrest.

All of these factors interact and strengthen eachother's impact on migration, but make no mistake, employment tends to be the most key factor involved. People will accept almost any circumstances as long as it means they survive. They just rarely accept them easily.
 

Offline SerBeardian

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 18
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1388 on: September 09, 2019, 05:00:58 PM »
Crossposting from the Discord:

Due to how tracking speed works, turrets that are slower than the ship are inherently useless.
This doesn't really make much sense since a turret rotating as the ship turns would have a faster overall tracking speed than one that's mounted to the hull.

I propose that turret tracking speed and ship tracking speed be additive values, not "instead of" values.

Proposed maths:
33% of ship speed is base tracking speed for non-fighters, 66% for fighters.
Turrets have their stated tracking speed.
Final weapon tracking speed would be the highest value plus 75% of the other.

Throwing some numbers out there:
A mag plas ship with 8000km/s movement and hull-mounted weapons would have 2666km/s tracking speed, or 33% base accuracy against itself.
Making the weapons turreted with a 6000km/s tracking speed would add 4500km/s to the final tracking speed, giving a total of 7166km/s.

Final numbers and equations would be up to Steve after playtesting, of course, but something along those lines.

This change would make turrets significantly more competitive in the beam ship world. Currently with speed being both offensive and defensive, combined with more guns per ton for hull-mounted weapons, and turrets adding literally nothing except wasted tonnage until they exceed the ship speed, makes turrets for anything other than PD significantly less effective than just mounting them to the hull. It would also provide a nice choice between spinals (harder hitting but inaccurate) versus turrets (more accurate but weaker), something that just doesn't compare with current weapons mechanics.

Thoughts appreciated.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1027
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1389 on: September 09, 2019, 05:28:10 PM »
I propose that turret tracking speed and ship tracking speed be additive values, not "instead of" values.

Proposed maths:
33% of ship speed is base tracking speed for non-fighters, 66% for fighters.
Turrets have their stated tracking speed.
Final weapon tracking speed would be the highest value plus 75% of the other.

...

Thoughts appreciated.

IMO that formula both sounds unnecessarily complex and also contradicts your first statements that they should be additive.

A great feature of the current way it's designed is that it's easy to figure out what the tracking speed will be.


Id suggest something more simple like Fighters + FAC get 100% of ship speed ( but can't use turrets ) while other ships get 50% of ship speed + turret tracking speed.

 

ulf

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1390 on: September 10, 2019, 06:44:11 AM »
A more "realistic" method would be that speed used for either tracking, or for maneuvering - so that the effective tracking speed would be max speed - current speed.
If so, it would also be good that actual required tracking speed (of the guns, not the targeting system) would be a bit lower too - after all, you don't need to change the direction the guns point by a lot if the target is only moving 2 degrees angle to you.  So effective speed for targeting should be some variant of current speed / distance - with counting at full speed if within 10k, as we're considering that point blank range.
 

Offline papent

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 64
  • Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1391 on: September 10, 2019, 01:05:39 PM »
what wrong with turret fighters and the classical multi-gun FAC? :'(

I do agree with your idea that ships less or equal to 20 HS have 100% of ship speed as basic weapon tracking speed and ships greater than 20 HS have 50% of ship speed as basic weapon tracking speed.

Or alternatively: Instead of a blanket 50% for all ships greater than 20 HS decrease it evenly from 100% ship speed as basic weapon tracking speed by 5% every additionally 20 HS greater than 20 HS until you hit 25% Base Weapon tracking speed from ship speeds at a certain size. Creating incentives for smaller ships as high accuracy escorts and for turrets on larger slower ships.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1027
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1392 on: September 10, 2019, 03:04:51 PM »
what wrong with turret fighters and the classical multi-gun FAC? :'(

Game balance. If fighters/FAC both get a bonus to tracking from ship speed + can use turrets, then they would always be the best Point Defense platform, which I don't think should be the case.

Mid sized screens or larger ships should be able to field competitive point defense too IMHO.


The idea that ship speed contributes more to tracking the smaller the ship does make alot of sense, but for balance you need to make turrets better for larger ships too in that case or the risk is that everyone will build as small fighters as they can get away having just engine and a minimal turret for PD.
 

Offline dukea42

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • d
  • Posts: 12
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1393 on: September 10, 2019, 08:16:33 PM »
This touches on the element my brain can't wrap around which is that linear speed translates to tracking speed.  But in a fluid, turning is the death of linear speed.  The titanic was famously a fast ship that couldn't turn.

I feel like if work was going to be added here, it should consider a factor for ship level agility like what missiles have. A "rudder tech" tech and component line.   Perhaps a speed penalty for tracking when agility is low. A tracking penalty for attacks against when agility is high.  Tracking penalty for spinals when high speed goes above rudder sizing.

I know the game also traditionally has infinite acceleration, but at least this would bring a little acceleration factor into play without the full newtonian calculations.
 
The following users thanked this post: Triato, Titanian, Peroox

Offline papent

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 64
  • Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1394 on: September 11, 2019, 05:01:22 AM »
I feel like if work was going to be added here, it should consider a factor for ship level agility like what missiles have. A "rudder tech" tech and component line.   Perhaps a speed penalty for tracking when agility is low. A tracking penalty for attacks against when agility is high.  Tracking penalty for spinals when high speed goes above rudder sizing.
If used Maybe call it thruster or maneuver tech ?

---

Game balance. If fighters/FAC both get a bonus to tracking from ship speed + can use turrets, then they would always be the best Point Defense platform, which I don't think should be the case.
In a way fighters and to a lesser extent FACs are already Superior PD units in a void outside of a campaign. Due to BFC bonus for fighters and small sensor pickup for FACs; fighters been used in a few of Steve's campaigns as fleet interceptors for PD and I have used PD FACs with long range endurance engines to escort survey ships. Outside of the void and in a campaign due to maintenance, fuel, crew, and other concerns not to mention the micromanagement to effective use such an advantage would mitigate the effects on game balance. Also as with most things in Aurora it's can be managed with self control on the players behalf of course.

The idea that ship speed contributes more to tracking the smaller the ship does make alot of sense, but for balance you need to make turrets better for larger ships too in that case or the risk is that everyone will build as small fighters as they can get away having just engine and a minimal turret for PD.

That would create an interesting follow-on effect as the largest reasonable size for a beam combat ship would additional have to be balanced against your turret tracking speed in addition to other considerations.
Or adding a hanger Bay to the design and carry a squadron of interceptors for PD which can be targeted by the enemy PD or interceptors...

I personally think that would be pretty awesome.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55